Watching them watching you...

[Simpo Two]

Thinking back to the recent thread about Plod and the public taking photos, this is rather interesting:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378555.html

'The Forward Intelligence Team (FIT) were photographing and video individuals and families, including small children, as they arrived at the Climate Camp on Thursday. This was in addition to permanent CCTV and helicopter surveillance of the Camp.'


For the first time ever I find myself on the hippies' side

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Simpo Two said:

Thinking back to the recent thread about Plod and the public taking photos, this is rather interesting:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378555.html

'The Forward Intelligence Team (FIT) were photographing and video individuals and families, including small children, as they arrived at the Climate Camp on Thursday. This was in addition to permanent CCTV and helicopter surveillance of the Camp.'


For the first time ever I find myself on the hippies' side

No actual images of that happening. Of course it wouldn't be anti-capitalist propoganda at all would it.

I mean they are all thorougly decent hard working law abiding citizens.

[odyssey2200]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I mean they are all thorougly decent hard working law abiding citizens.

Are you implying you have proof af a crime?


Innocent until proven guilty.

[Simpo Two]

Point is - 'they' can photograph 'us' in a most overt manner, whilst 'they' choose to question us for photographing a donut van. The two word that bubble up are 'principle' and 'hypocrisy'. And that's before I've even stopped to think who's paying for their salaries and nice cameras... which is 'us'.

Here's a phrase to chew on: 'Public Servants'.

[J111]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No actual images of that happening. Of course it wouldn't be anti-capitalist propoganda at all would it.

Apart from the photos in the link, of course. F*cking apologists

ETA: I edited this to remove the link to the photo, taken from the linked site, because it didn't show up on return to the thread.

Edited by J111 on Friday 11th July 22:53

[Mr_annie_vxr]

J111 said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No actual images of that happening. Of course it wouldn't be anti-capitalist propoganda at all would it.

Probably not, no:



fking apologists

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor. The story claims they are taking pictures of children. They are capturing images of activists and know activists as well as normal people to help to identify those later on who engage in criminal activity and those that don't. So the genuine campaigners can be identified and the criminal element who preach violence can be dealt with.

As the people in the attached blog advocate attacking police officers I think it appears they are targetting the right people.

As for being a fking apologist.

I don't appologise for doing my job. I never will. I don't need to.

I'd rather that than support those who would spray graffiti on war graves. Smash up towns and personal property.

I'm sure there will be no unlawful activity whatsoever.

[J111]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor. The story claims they are taking pictures of children.

Then highlight that element for complaint, not the entire quote, or you appear dishonest.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

They are capturing images of activists and know activists as well as normal people to help to identify those later on who engage in criminal activity and those that don't.

Activists are normal people. Protest in this country is legal. Intentional intimidation of those involved in protest is not.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

So the genuine campaigners can be identified and the criminal element who preach violence can be dealt with.

If that is the sole reason for surveillance, there is no reason to target multiple shots at individuals, nor is there any justification to retain images after the event.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

As the people in the attached blog advocate attacking police officers I think it appears they are targetting the right people.

I would not advocate attacking police officers or obstructing their work. However, zero assistance seems the approach least likely to have negative effects on an otherwise law abiding individual.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I'd rather that than support those who would spray graffiti on war graves. Smash up towns and personal property.

I'm sure there will be no unlawful activity whatsoever.

You're seeking to associate legitimate protest with criminality. That makes you an apologist for totalitarianism, and is disgraceful in someone who purports to act in the public interest, and I make no apology for the language I directed towards you.

Edited by J111 on Friday 11th July 22:53

[CommanderJameson]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor.

This is what's wrong with this country.

Protest is good.

Protest is right.

Your insinuation that protest is a bad thing is wrong.

The freedom for people who have a chip on their shoulder about something to make that statement in public is what our grandparents died for.

Edited by CommanderJameson on Friday 11th July 23:07

[millband]

Here here. Well said.

[J111]

CommanderJameson said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor.

This is what's wrong with this country.

Protest is good.

Protest is right.

Your insinuation that protest is a bad thing is wrong.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

CommanderJameson said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor.

This is what's wrong with this country.

Protest is good.

Protest is right.

Your insinuation that protest is a bad thing is wrong.

The freedom for people who have a chip on their shoulder about something to make that statement in public is what our grandparents died for.

Edited by CommanderJameson on Friday 11th July 23:07

I am not against protest. I did not say I was. I pointed out that unlike the article the pictures are of protestors not of children as claimed. I also explained why images are taken to identify those who are lawfully protesting and those who later will be throwing objects as described in the linked blog. I take it then you advocate violent attacks on police? That's what the attached blogs support and encourage.

I have no issues with legitimate protests. I have issues with individuals amongst this group who have in the past smashed up town centres personal property and damaged memorials to just the people you refer to here. Those individuals undermine legitimate protests and their actions have lead to peacefull protestors being caught up and legitimate points lost in pictures of damaged cars and smashed retail premesis.

Nothing legitimate in smashing up personal property or violent assault or is there as far as you are all concerned?

Activists using words and argument is one thing. Using violence and causing damage is another.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

J111 said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Doesn't look like a child. Looks like a protestor. The story claims they are taking pictures of children.

Then highlight that element for complaint, not the entire quote, or you appear dishonest.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

They are capturing images of activists and know activists as well as normal people to help to identify those later on who engage in criminal activity and those that don't.

Activists are normal people. Protest in this country is legal. Intentional intimidation of those involved in protest is not.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

So the genuine campaigners can be identified and the criminal element who preach violence can be dealt with.

If that is the sole reason for surveillance, there is no reason to target multiple shots at individuals, nor is there any justification to retain images after the event.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

As the people in the attached blog advocate attacking police officers I think it appears they are targetting the right people.

I would not advocate attacking police officers or obstructing their work. However, zero assistance seems the approach least likely to have negative effects on an otherwise law abiding individual.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I'd rather that than support those who would spray graffiti on war graves. Smash up towns and personal property.

I'm sure there will be no unlawful activity whatsoever.

You're seeking to associate legitimate protest with criminality. That makes you an apologist for totalitarianism, and is disgraceful in someone who purports to act in the public interest, and I make no apology for the language I directed towards you.

Edited by J111 on Friday 11th July 22:53

Of course. I have clearly imagined the violence the damage and the comments about violence on the blogs.

No I don't seek to associate violence or criminal acts with legitimate protest unfortunately those that do these acts have decided to do so. That's not my choice. My job is to ensure that element don't ruin it for everyone else that they are brought to justice for criminal offences that you and others don't suffer due to their illegal acts. Criminal elements have put themselves amongst the legitimate protestors. They have created this problem that the police are now trying to deal with. FIT teams are used to aid 'surgical' strikes on that element to remove them to allow the legitimate protestors to do just that. lawfully express their view.

If your view is that the police should not intervene or take any efforts to monitor or stop this activity then just say that. Elements amongst those at the climate camp were responsible for damage caused in London previoulsly and at G8, for smashing up and damaging cars and for targetting gas guzzlers with paint. If you think that's legitimate and should be allowed to happen that's your view. I don't think its right to do that.

If rather we did not have to police this but as elements amongst the group have a stated intent to break into the power station and cause problems what would you suggest? How would you as the obvious expert manage protests like this and in London?

Call me what you like. So far its dishonest and a fking apologist. What else will you add to this ?

Edited by Mr_annie_vxr on Saturday 12th July 10:46

[Joey Deacon]

I'll add fascist and stasi.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Joey Deacon said:

I'll add fascist and stasi.

I'm sure you can do far better than that Stig.

So you are in the just let them get on with it camp then? No policing let them do as they please no intervention.

Edited by Mr_annie_vxr on Saturday 12th July 11:33

[Joey Deacon]

if there is no threat or risk then why the need for FIT? You surely see the massive change in puplic opinions which the govt has massively influenced through fear and paranoia over the years? Even some of your comments would have me believe theres been a shift in police opinion too where now everyone is a suspect.

Take a look at camps like the wiilt/glocs green camp. Its a gathering but will it require FIT? What exactly is the purpose of FIT other than intimidation? Its overt surveylance and I'd like to know which laws are used to enable the photogaphs? Are they the exact same laws that enable people to photograph in public? Genuine question as i'd like to read up on the section governing FITs surveylance.

[cs02rm0]

Perhaps there's a middle ground between gathering evidence on apparently innocent people (though they are activists so they're bound to become criminals in a short time) and no policing at all?

Nah, I'm just being stupid now.

[odyssey2200]

Annie you are coming across as a fascist.

People have the right to protest.

Protesting when our "leaders" ignore us is good and right.

Supressing the masses and intimidating them is the slippery slope to a Mugabe type dictatorship.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Joey Deacon said:

if there is no threat or risk then why the need for FIT? You surely see the massive change in puplic opinions which the govt has massively influenced through fear and paranoia over the years? Even some of your comments would have me believe theres been a shift in police opinion too where now everyone is a suspect.

Take a look at camps like the wiilt/glocs green camp. Its a gathering but will it require FIT? What exactly is the purpose of FIT other than intimidation? Its overt surveylance and I'd like to know which laws are used to enable the photogaphs? Are they the exact same laws that enable people to photograph in public? Genuine question as i'd like to read up on the section governing FITs surveylance.

There has been an identified threat from individuals amongst the group. A tactic is that those with criminal intent who want to cause damage or use violence hide behind those there for peaceful, lawful protest.

FIT is about following and identifying those individuals to gather evidence on them that can identify them later when they cause problems, or hopefully prevent them from doing things that ruin the protest for the the others. Groups at the climate camp have a stated intent to storm the local power station amongst other things. They also contain within their group activists who target large vehicles that gas guzzlers with damage etc.

If it was just reasonable people gathering then there would be no need to have anything but token presence however when a stated aim on the website is to shut down the power station then I think that is a step too far. People have a right to express views but not in a way that harms or hurts others. FIT is about targeting those with criminal intent and those with genuine intent. Those with criminal intent have ruined lawful protest. The same people who have destroyed parts of London and Scotland. They choose to hide within the larger lawful group. FIt requires fewer officers and means that protests and camps are left to carry on rather than being stopped.

FIT is covered by RIPA and the use of it has to be authorised and compliant with human rights legislation, the authority has to be constantly reviewed. FIT is designed to target the criminal element, its also used for football hooligans and active criminals of other kinds. Its used in conjunction with other evidence techniques to ensure that the right people are arrested and charged and to try to avoid problems evolving to violence.

As on the website linked the comments of individuals seem to mainly revolve round encouraging violent attacks or throwing things at police officers, it would appear they are filming the right element. Unless of course you feel its reasonable to attack police officers ?

Huge resources are having to be diverted from day to day policing because of the problems caused by certain elements in the past. Resources that could be better used elsewhere. Unless of course you think they should be allowed to storm the power station and close it down? Last time they closed down the coal feed, the control room and chained themselves up in an attempt to close the power station down. I have no problem with them marching or campaigning, I do have a problem with them destroying fencing and forcing their way in to the buildings in an effort to close it down. If you think I am making it up, read the page and what there intention is with regards mass protest.

There are more restrictions on the police filming you than on you filming/ photographing the police.

I look forward to then next round of insults.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

odyssey2200 said:

Annie you are coming across as a fascist.

People have the right to protest.

Protesting when our "leaders" ignore us is good and right.

Supressing the masses and intimidating them is the slippery slope to a Mugabe type dictatorship.

They do. Do they also have the right to smash up retail outlets? damage war memorials? smash up peoples personal vehicles?

I have no interest in those protesting but in those doing the last three things. I presume that you support the destruction of personal property then?

[odyssey2200]

Papiere, bitte!

Schnell!